Parking Charge from UKPC - Stevenage Leisure Park

Jim_AFCB

Consider adding a rebuttal of the Beavis case - this is going to the Supreme Court, I'd put money on that being a fact they forgot to mention.....

Umkomaas

Jim_AFCB wrote: »

Consider adding a rebuttal of the Beavis case - this is going to the Supreme Court, I'd put money on that being a fact they purposely forgot to mention.....

I've amended that for you!

fairway76

Thanks all.

I'm emailing it over today and will keep you informed.

Cheers

Coupon-mad

That's a great rebuttal summary and you will win. Nice one!

fairway76

Fingers crossed Coupon-mad!

fairway76

Thanks very much to everyone that has helped me on here - the appeal was allowed by POPLA!!!

The details are as below:-

Fairway76 (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising out of the presence at Stevenage Leisure Park, on 7 March 2015, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and a parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s employee allegedly observed the driver leaving the site whilst remaining parked.

The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the land.

The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.

Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The witness statement provided by the operator is insufficient to show that any authority has been validly granted as it does not name the landowner, from which the authority must flow. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed

Christopher Monk
Assessor


Thanks All!! :rotfl::T

Umkomaas

See my comments to your post in the POPLA Decisions stick thread.

Time for BIG complaints.

Well done on beating them at POPLA, but now is the time to exact revenge and deliver more pain!